Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Quasi-experimental study observes no significant performance difference between gamified and paper exams in college Python students, suggesting interactive digital testing remains viable.
This study examines student-performance outcomes by comparing two distinct assessment environments—a traditional paper-based exam and a complex gamified digital format—in a university-level introductory Python programming course. A quasi-experimental comparison with student self-selection was conducted at John von Neumann University (Hungary) with 63 first-year Information Technology students. Twenty-seven students took a conventional paper-based exam, while 36 completed the assessment in CodingUs, a custom-built “Among Us”-inspired web application. This gamified condition operated as a package intervention, incorporating not only game design elements but also individualized AI-generated tasks, disabled clipboard operations, and a distinct user interface. Isomorphic Python tasks were produced by an AI-assisted generation pipeline using GPT-4o-mini and GPT-4o. Performance was compared using the Mann–Whitney U test as the primary procedure, with an independent-samples t-test as a supplementary parametric analysis. The two groups did not differ significantly in mean performance (gamified: M = 63.06%, SD = 31.61; traditional: M = 68.89%, SD = 34.68; Mann–Whitney U = 423.50, p = .383; t(61) = −0.70, p = .490; Cohen’s d = −0.18; 95% CI for the mean difference [−22.61, +10.94]). While no statistically significant difference in performance was detected in this sample, the wide confidence interval and the self-selection nature of the design preclude claims of equivalence. Informal classroom observations and unsolicited student feedback offered preliminary indications of elevated engagement and favourable perceptions of the anti-cheating provisions in the gamified cohort; because no validated self-report instrument was administered, these impressions are reported as exploratory rather than confirmatory. The study contributes a replicable AI-supported pipeline for generating isomorphic programming items and motivates further research employing randomised allocation and validated measurement instruments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
József Cserkó (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: